Evening Republican, Volume 14, Number 230, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 September 1910 — BADER AND COMMISSIONERS “NOT GUILTY” AS CHARGED. [ARTICLE]

BADER AND COMMISSIONERS “NOT GUILTY” AS CHARGED.

Effort of Prosecutor to Introduce Evidence Failed Absolutely and Case Ends Abruptly. The jury before whom the case against Clinton L. Bader, John F. Pettit, Fred Waymire and Chas. T. Denham was tried, rendered a unanimous verdict of “not guilty” this Tuesday morning, when Ralph Donnelly, foreman, having been instructed by Special Judge Darroch, of Kentland, to render a verdict in favor of the defendants, signed a verdict prepared by the defendant’s lawyers.

The case came to a sudden termination when the court sustained an objection by counsel to Wallace Marshall, who was on the witness stand answering a question as to what the bid of the Winamac Bridge Co. was for the construction of the bridge. Mr. Marshall had previously stated that he did not see the bld when it was opened and the court ruled that if he did not see the bid he was not qualified to testify what the bid was. The holding of the court took all the steam out of the state’s case and Prosecutor Longwell at once moved a recess of five minutes and at the expiration of that time he acquiesced in the termination of the case and Judge Darroch instructed the attorneys for the defense to prepare a jury finding of innocense for their clients. This required but a moment and after Judge Darroch had looked it over he had it handed to the jury foreman, Ralph Donnelly, who leaned over the rail and signed it. All members of the jury then acknowledged it as their verdict. •

Prosecutor Longwell had found rough sailing from the start. Arrayed against him were zr half dozen attorneys, the shrewdest in this section of Indiana. They were led by Attorney Emery Sellers, of Monticello, who was the spokesman for the defense. He sat nearest the witness stand and surrounding him were the other attorneys, George A. Williams, Abraham Halleck, M. M. Hathaway, of Winamac, and Henry A. Stels, of South Bend. Attorney Glazebrook, of Knox, sat across the table, alfhost facing Mr. Sellers. Prosecuting Attorney Longwell sat near Court Reporter Harry Folk and facing the witness stand. Considerable time was spent in impaneling a jury, both sides having indulged to some extent in the right to release jurymen peremptorily. Sheriff Shirer and Court Bailiff Woodworth were kept busy running in new jurymen. The jury was completed about 3 o’clock. Prosecutor Longwell stated the state’s case to the jury. Mr. Sellers made no statement for the defense but informed the prosecutor that he could begin his evidence. He called for Auditor Leatherman, who soon appeared with some of the papers that it was expected to introduce in the case. With the first question after Mr. Leatherman had stated his name and office to the jury, the trouble started. Mr. Sellers objected to the introduction of the papers in evidence, claiming that they had not been plead in the affidavit, that the affidavit itself did not charge a crime and making a string of general objections. The court overruled most of them, but exhibiting some doubt whether he was right in so doing. He stated that he did not care to consider anything at the time t|iat had any bearing on the affidavit itself, Judge Hanley having ruled that it was good. As fast as Mr. Longwell asked a question, Mr. Sellers objected and the case was proceeding very slowly. While the court overruled the defense in the main, it was necessary a number of times to require the state’s counsel to change the wording of important questions and it was plain that Judge Darroch was conscious that the state's case was weakening. Finally the famous bid was introduced and after the objections to admitting it had been made, Judge Darroch asked to see the bid and then the indictment. He then informed the prosecutor that the bid was evidently not the one referred to in the indictment as signed by C. L. Bader, as the one in question was signed simply "C. L. B—”. The defect seemed vital to the court and he sustained the objection to its admission in court. Mr. Longwell then asked for a recess of five minutqs and this was granted and

a little later the court adjourned over night. • ■ Tuesday morning at 9 o’clock the case was again taken up. The first thing that happened was a reversal of the court’s decision of the night before, and the objection of the counsel for the defense was overruled and the bid admitted to be read to the jury. After it had been read another objection was interposed' to its being passed among the jurymen and this objection was sustained. Mr. Leatherman had during the previous afternoon, brought the records of the commissioners’ court into court and the facts therein contained, which dealt with the legal proceeding for the advertising, etc., for the bridge letting, was introduced. When the prosecutor was restrained from passing the bid among the jurymen, he released Air. Leatherman to the defense. The question was asked by Mr. Sellers whether-the bid seemed to be the same now that it was when he first came into possession of it, and he stated that it did except for the fact that ft was soiled some by handling. He was asked if he had made a minute examination of the bid following the charges made in July, 1909, by Wallace Marshall. He stated that he had examined it with a magnifying glass and that he could see no evidence of other figures than the $1,400, although there was some evidence of an erasure beneath, He was asked if any other persons had examined it, and answered that Leslie Clark, of the Rensselaer Republican, and the deputy auditor. Miss Alice Bates, had seen it. He said he had examined, it both before and after Mr. Clark had and that he saw no evidence of other figures. He was not permitted to answer a question as to whether the figures as they appear at this time are the same as those which appeared on the bid at the time he examined it in July, 1909, for the reason that any possible alteration following the charges by Marshall would be immaterial. To tend toward conviction it would have to be shown that the change took place after (he bids were opened and before the bid

was given into the custody of the auditor, which was only about 25 minutes. Mr.- Leatherman"testifiedtri a t when he first saw the bid, some 20 or 25 minutes, he thought after it had been opened, he found it to read $1,400. and noticed no other figures. Wallach Marshall was next called. He stated that he was the president of the Lafayette Bridge Co., and that he attended the bridge letting in March, 1909, and made a bid on the bridge let to Bader’s company. He was asked if he had seen the bid made by the Winamac Bridge Co. and stated’ that he had not. He was then asked by Mr. Longwell what the bid of the Winamac Bridge Co. was, and the counsel for the defense objected, Mr. Sellers stating a number of reasons why the witness was not qualified to answer it, the chief of which was that if the witness did not see the bid he did not know what was bid. Mr. Longwell had been laboring heavily for some time and had probably,, realized that the end could not be long deferred. He asked for another recess, which was granted. When the recess was over he stepped up to the court and talked so low that none outside the railing could hear what he was saying. He then took his seat and the court announced that the case was at an end and instructed the finding for the defendants. Mr. Longwell had been very nervous. He had paced the floor through a narrow passageway between the witness stand and the defendants’ counsel and occasionally would stop and level a searching glance at the impassive face of Mr. Sellers, who was as calm and serene as a June evening. That Mr. Longwell was filled with emotion was very plain and the realization of defeat seemed to sting him as a personal disappointment. Friends in the court room felt sorry for him, but realized that he had brought this case on his own initiative after two grand juries had listened to all the evidence that Mr. Longw’ell could procure and decided that there was nothing on which an indictment could be returned and that the outcome was what every one or almost every one feR sure it would be. The sudden termination of the case does not lessen the complete vindication of the men affected. As the Republican stated months ago, there was no evidence that- would in the least incriminate the county commissioners. But Wallace Marshall, of the Lafayette Bridge Co., and a representative of the Attica Bridge Co., we’re willing to testify that when the bids were opened, the bid of the Winamac company was for $1,240. Mr. Marshall is very deaf and unless the bids had

been read through a megaphone ho would have been unable to have said whether the bid was $1,400 or $20,000. On the other hand, Ben McColly, a lepresentative of the Joliet Bridge Co., understood the .bid to be $1,400, and Mr. Bader says that is what his bid was, while all the commissioners state that was the figure read, and Mr. Leatherman, who came into the .commissioners' room while the court was in session and only 20 or 25 minutes after the bids were opened, stated that the bid was for $1,400 when he saw it at that time. A fine prospect of collusion and conspiracy! If the commissioners and Mr. Bader had intended co conspire to defraud the county, why, if the bid had originally been $1,240, did they not make a 4 out of the 2 and make the bid read $1,440? This would have been an easy matter and the bid would have been $29 lower than the next bid. "there was absolutely no evidence that should have found lodgment with fair minds to show that the commissioners or Mr. Bader had been guilty of doing anything that would not bear the light of day. While there is no doubt about Mr. Long well’s personal enthusiasm and while he was probably urged to bring this suit by a few persons who hoped to secure political advantages, there can also be no doubt that he acted very indiscreetly in thus parading the names of good men before the county as guilty of crookedness in office. The matter of conviction of a violation of law in relation to the shortening of the specifications on a bridge has nothing whatever to do with the commissioners in this case, and it was as foolish as it was ill-advised for the prosecutor to ignore the action of a non-partizan grand jury and make ail affidavit charging men of responsibility and the highest personal honesty with having conspired to defraud the county out of $l6O. If there had been evidence of guilt Mr. Longwell would have found himself surrounded by all the good people of Jasper county, but there never was any evidence that deserved a suggestion against the high honor of the members of the board personally and in their official capacity. They have conducted the affairs of Jasper county ably and honestly and they are men of the highest standing in business life and they deserve the—complete—^xoneTation—which the finding of the court assures them.

That some democrats of the county were unscrupulous enough to take delight in the prosecution and that they have been laughing in their sleeves for some time, is very certain, but the commissioners urged a speedy trial of the case and their vindication should prove to all that there was more politics than anything else behind the prosecution and that Mr. Longwell. probably unconsciously, was playing into the hands of the democratic machine, headed by F. E. Babcock, of the Jasper County Democrat. Only one of the commissioners, John F. Pettit, of Walker township, is a candidate for re-election. He should receive the vote of every republican and of allthe men of other parties who know that he is above suspicion of the act charged against him. The Republican has implicit confidence in Mr. Pettit and believes that he is thoroughly’ qualified for the office he fills and for which he is a candidate for re-election. We believe the election returns in November will give, him another vindication. There are several cases pending against Mr. Bader, based upon alleged violation of specifications in the construction of bridges. The date of the trial of these has not been set.